From: Mike F. <va...@ge...> - 2008-01-28 23:36:29
|
On Monday 28 January 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 04:21:01PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Monday 28 January 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 03:43:16PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > > On Monday 28 January 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 06:53:15AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > > > > On Monday 28 January 2008, Rishikesh K. Rajak wrote: > > > > > > > Here i am getting failure on the x86_64 machine with new > > > > > > > kernel. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is the uname for that machine: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rishi@:~/ltp-full-20071231# uname -a > > > > > > > Linux rishi.in.ibm.com 2.6.24 #1 SMP PREEMPT Mon Jan 28 > > > > > > > 06:47:28 UTC 2008 x86_64 GNU/Linux > > > > > > > > > > > > i'm guessing you're using ubuntu and thus dash is your /bin/sh > > > > > > ... shouldnt be a 2.6.24 issue > > > > > > > > > > > > > make[4]: Entering directory > > > > > > > `/root/ltp-full-20071231/testcases/network/tcp_cmds/ftp' > > > > > > > ../../generate.sh > > > > > > > ../../generate.sh: 60: arith: syntax error: "cnt=3Dcnt-1" > > > > > > > > > > > > sadly, this is becoming a FAQ. ubuntu ships a broken /bin/sh > > > > > > (dash) and thus some LTP scripts fall apart. i would prefer to > > > > > > not change the scripts as the message is simple in LTP: fix your > > > > > > shell, dont add hacks to LTP. otherwise we slowly back ourselv= es > > > > > > into this corner with the shell scripts where we try to support > > > > > > every craptastic shell out there and we're afraid to make any > > > > > > changes because we dont know what crappy shell is going to drop= a > > > > > > brick. LTP scripts are written to be POSIX complaint and only > > > > > > POSIX complaint shells should be provided by /bin/sh. > > > > > > > > > > You better fulfil your claim "LTP scripts are written to be POSIX > > > > > complaint" before complaining about shells being unhappy with your > > > > > script. E.g. where in IEEE 1003.1-2004 is the "local" you use > > > > > specified? > > > > > > > > yes, local is a bsd extension not in POSIX. it has been implemented > > > > by every shell so far though. as soon as someone complains, i'll be > > > > more than happy to fix it. > > > > > > David Korn's ksh93 (e.g. shipped in the Debian "ksh" package) disprov= es > > > your claim "it has been implemented by every shell so far". > > > > sorry, i left out the operative word "relevant". i dont care what rand= om > > shell fails unless people are actually utilizing it as their /bin/sh in > > any sort of useful context. as soon as someone complains for real and > > not just to be annoying, i'll address their complaint then. > >... > > You started with claiming "LTP scripts are written to be POSIX > complaint" and now that I've shown you a not that uncommon IEEE POSIX > 1003.2 compliant shell that can't cope with your non-POSIX script you > suddenly introduce the word "relevant". what's your point ? LTP scripts are POSIX compliant with a little extra th= at=20 so far has worked fine for everyone actually running LTP. as soon as the=20 little extra realistically becomes a problem, i'll rework things. you have= nt=20 shown a realistic system. i'm willing to tweak things for real LTP users,= =20 not people being tools. > But when you care only about "relevant" shells you could simply > implementing my suggestion of placing a #!/bin/bash at the top of your > scripts instead of defining your own POSIX superset that you require > from a /bin/sh for allowing a user to execute your script... no. people run LTP on embedded systems w/out bash. =2Dmike |